Armed citizen saves life of Police officer

[bigrebnc1775]

California Girl.
Since you're not accepting PMs please let me respond to you in open forum.

My point's sound.
Save your outrage for those selfish bastards that don't give a shit about the Newtown kids or any other victims but are more concerned about keeping their toys.
Bigrednec is Exhibit A.

If anti gun people cared about kids they wouldn't allowed them into a place that is unprotected like gun free zones.

 

[idb]

most shootings are covered only by local media. unless it's a mass shooting with innocent people being killed or that evil black rifle being used.

True, if every media outlet covered every shooting in the country there would be no time for any other news.

not even close to being correct.
Local news covers all area shootings it's doesn't make it to the national news level until it's a mass shooting with innocent people being killed and that evil black rifle being used.
Did you know that the shooter at the mall in Washington state was stopped by an armed citizen?

That's what I said, most shootings aren't major news because they're so common.

Did you know that the Gabby Gifford shooter was subdued by unarmed bystanders?

 

[idb]

California Girl.
Since you're not accepting PMs please let me respond to you in open forum.

My point's sound.
Save your outrage for those selfish bastards that don't give a shit about the Newtown kids or any other victims but are more concerned about keeping their toys.
Bigrednec is Exhibit A.

If anti gun people cared about kids they wouldn't allowed them into a place that is unprotected like gun free zones.

Thank you Exhibit A.
The only possible answer to guns is more guns.

 

[aaronleland]

I'm all for supporting our 2nd amendment rights, but this story isn't the best example to use. The officer's sidearm didn't help him while in a direct altercation with the driver. It took a man in a neck brace sneaking up from behind and shooting him in the head. For being armed and all his training, the officer ended up on the ground screaming for help.

 

[ba1614]

First off, I question if this event happened because it has not been on any main stream news sources that I am aware of: perhaps you could cite one, maybe it was on Fox News? Because, whenever presenting facts, 'consider the source' is always important, and the source in this link is pro-gun, thus biased. Second, how do we know the officer was being 'beaten to death,' or that he was 'screaming for help' as is described in the link? The citizen with a gun killed this man, shot him several times, according to your link. How do we know that was warranted? Why not just call 911 have the police come and take care of it? If this was a funeral procession, there would be a lot of people around, people to break up the fight if possible. The act of the citizen who simply pulled out his gun and shot a half dozen holes into the man seems very extreme, excessive. Does a person actually deserve to die because they are in a fist fight, even if it is a cop they have attacked? I have put forth what I think are some reasonable questions. I would appreciate not being called a lot of names for doing so. Free speech, open dialogue, all that.

Maybe it's because the corporate and Authoritarian media only want to feed you the "Guns are evil in all circumstances" propaganda. Start exploring outside the media bubble of the International Global Banks. They hate you, they dominate you, they own you. Break free.

lol ain't it something? the ideology driven media didn't report it so it didn't' happen!!

 

[zeke]

According to some weird study that the gun nutters love to cite, there are thousands of crimes stopped every day by citizens with their guns.

And EVERYONE KNOWS that the media will not report those crimes, because a. no one knows about them and b. it would hurt the gun grabbers if these stopped crimes were reported.

So the conspiracy grows.

Thousands of crimes stopped evrey day........and yet the gun nutter had to go all the way back a few years to find this example. Why?


And of course, did you read the excerpt from the eye witness? He said the shooter never said a word of warning to the guy doing the beat down. Just walked up and shot him in the back of the head. What a puss. Hope he has nightmares for the rest of his life.

I agree with you. I doubt there are very many incidents where the average citizen stops a crime and it goes unreported by the media because of some conspiracy. I think the magazines and blogs and other media sources pro-gun people read and listen to are telling them a lot of this happens, but it isn't in the mainstream media because it isn't actually happening. If it is actually happening and verifiable and there is a conspiracy about not reporting it, why doesn't the NRA report it? Why only obscure blogs and media that no one but pro-gun people pay attention to?

I also think it is horrible that the man in this case shot the assailant without a word of warning.

It will only get reported too the media if it's reported too the police. Not every incidence is reported to the police.[/QUOTE]


LMFAO. This is where the story gets real good. How is it that, without those stopped crimes being reported, that the gun nutters feel so sure that millions of crimes are being stopped by gun owners. With no reporting on the crimes being stopped.

It must be magic.

And surely biggie, you must have stopped numerous crimes by now with your guns.
Tell us a story about how you did that.

And why did the nutter have to go back a few years to pull this old chestnut out. Should have been at least a dozen crimes stopped just yesterday to use as an example.

And seeing as how you are all for shooting people in the back of the head who are in a fight, biggie should the cops be able to do the same? You know, they come on a fight where a person is getting their ass kicked, and the cop, being scared of getting hurt, like the citizen was in this case cited, just pulls his weapon and shoots the guy who is winning the fight in the back of the head.

Would that be ok biggie? You all for vigilante justice?

 

[California Girl]

California Girl.
Since you're not accepting PMs please let me respond to you in open forum.

My point's sound.
Save your outrage for those selfish bastards that don't give a shit about the Newtown kids or any other victims but are more concerned about keeping their toys.
Bigrednec is Exhibit A.

In order to feel 'outrage', I would first need to respect your comments. Since you fail to gain my respect, there is no 'outrage'. Comments are not 'outrage', they are just comments. Only hysterical fools mistake the two.

I don't accept PMs from idiots. That is true - to a large degree, at least. There are some idiots that I cannot opt out of PMs from - I would if I could.

I have yet to see any comment from BigRed that supports your claim about him. Again, hysteria is not 'evidence'. If you cannot comprehend his comments, that doesn't make him an idiot... but it really does raise a question about your intellectual capacity.

Now, stop whining.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I agree with you. I doubt there are very many incidents where the average citizen stops a crime and it goes unreported by the media because of some conspiracy. I think the magazines and blogs and other media sources pro-gun people read and listen to are telling them a lot of this happens, but it isn't in the mainstream media because it isn't actually happening. If it is actually happening and verifiable and there is a conspiracy about not reporting it, why doesn't the NRA report it? Why only obscure blogs and media that no one but pro-gun people pay attention to?

I also think it is horrible that the man in this case shot the assailant without a word of warning.

It will only get reported too the media if it's reported too the police. Not every incidence is reported to the police.[/QUOTE]


LMFAO. This is where the story gets real good. How is it that, without those stopped crimes being reported, that the gun nutters feel so sure that millions of crimes are being stopped by gun owners. With no reporting on the crimes being stopped.

It must be magic.

And surely biggie, you must have stopped numerous crimes by now with your guns.
Tell us a story about how you did that.

And why did the nutter have to go back a few years to pull this old chestnut out. Should have been at least a dozen crimes stopped just yesterday to use as an example.

And seeing as how you are all for shooting people in the back of the head who are in a fight, biggie should the cops be able to do the same? You know, they come on a fight where a person is getting their ass kicked, and the cop, being scared of getting hurt, like the citizen was in this case cited, just pulls his weapon and shoots the guy who is winning the fight in the back of the head.

Would that be ok biggie? You all for vigilante justice?

There's plenty of people who don't call the cops when they use a gun if they don't shoot it. When in the course of defending their lives .

 

[Oldstyle]

I am female and small, so I wouldn't be able to fight back very well, but, still, I would want people to pull the guy off me, not kill him. I question if the cop was being 'beaten to death' as described in the link. One man against another in a fist fight doesn't mean it is a deadly situation. Was the cop so unfit he couldn't fight back? And if there are people around, and the assailant is unarmed, why kill him, why not just pull him off the cop? Pull him off, restrain him, and wait for police reinforcements. My experience is that, in this kind of situation, the police arrive very quickly, in a few minutes. That's my experience. Certainly, when it is a cop being assaulted, they'd come fast.

No offense, Esmerelda...but coming from someone who's been in a situation where someone was beating my ass (in this case it was four men stomping me on the ground), a few minutes is an incredibly long time. The sad fact is that Police response almost never keeps you from BEING assaulted. They usually just end up helping get you to the hospital.

The Police do come fast when it's one of theirs being assaulted. Don't count on that same response time if it's you that it's happening to because you're probably going to be disappointed.

Okay, but the situation described in the OP was one where there must have been plenty of people around. If the man with the gun told the guy to stop or he'd shoot him, and the guy still didn't stop, why shoot him over and over again, why not once and disable him? Why kill him? This was not a case of 4 men stomping the cop on the ground. This was one man against another man, and I don't see how, for a few minutes, the cop couldn't fight him off or several men/people observing this couldn't make an effort to pull the guy off the cop. I think killing him was over the top. I think if this were reversed and it was a cop shooting someone who was fighting with another person, shooting him several times, you people would be outraged that the cop used excessive force.

Since I don't know the specifics of this altercation, it's hard to judge whether it's over the top or not. One would have to question whether someone who has beaten a trained police officer to the ground is someone that you would want to get into a physical confrontation with. The whole concept of shooting someone to "disable" them? I'm sorry but where exactly would you elect to shoot someone to do that? The general rule of thumb is that if you feel the use of a gun is warranted then the use of deadly force is what's called for. The whole "shoot to wound" thing is wishful thinking by people that have little experience with firing guns.

 

[hunarcy]

First off, I question if this event happened because it has not been on any main stream news sources that I am aware of: perhaps you could cite one, maybe it was on Fox News? Because, whenever presenting facts, 'consider the source' is always important, and the source in this link is pro-gun, thus biased. Second, how do we know the officer was being 'beaten to death,' or that he was 'screaming for help' as is described in the link? The citizen with a gun killed this man, shot him several times, according to your link. How do we know that was warranted? Why not just call 911 have the police come and take care of it? If this was a funeral procession, there would be a lot of people around, people to break up the fight if possible. The act of the citizen who simply pulled out his gun and shot a half dozen holes into the man seems very extreme, excessive. Does a person actually deserve to die because they are in a fist fight, even if it is a cop they have attacked? I have put forth what I think are some reasonable questions. I would appreciate not being called a lot of names for doing so. Free speech, open dialogue, all that.

May not be the same incident, but Bystander Fired Deadly Shot, Not Officer - WAFB 9 News Baton Rouge, Louisiana News, Weather, Sports

 

[zeke]

It will only get reported too the media if it's reported too the police. Not every incidence is reported to the police.[/QUOTE]


LMFAO. This is where the story gets real good. How is it that, without those stopped crimes being reported, that the gun nutters feel so sure that millions of crimes are being stopped by gun owners. With no reporting on the crimes being stopped.

It must be magic.

And surely biggie, you must have stopped numerous crimes by now with your guns.
Tell us a story about how you did that.

And why did the nutter have to go back a few years to pull this old chestnut out. Should have been at least a dozen crimes stopped just yesterday to use as an example.

And seeing as how you are all for shooting people in the back of the head who are in a fight, biggie should the cops be able to do the same? You know, they come on a fight where a person is getting their ass kicked, and the cop, being scared of getting hurt, like the citizen was in this case cited, just pulls his weapon and shoots the guy who is winning the fight in the back of the head.

Would that be ok biggie? You all for vigilante justice?

There's plenty of people who don't call the cops when they use a gun if they don't shoot it. When in the course of defending their lives .

If people don't report the crimes they stopped, where do you get the numbers you like to use for crimes stopped by people with their guns?

Is it,he told me and I told you and you told blah blah blah... why pretty soon people would think a million crimes a year are stopped. But they ain't.

So where do those numbers come from? The NRA? Self reported? The Heller Keller Feller?
Just curious.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

First off, I question if this event happened because it has not been on any main stream news sources that I am aware of: perhaps you could cite one, maybe it was on Fox News? Because, whenever presenting facts, 'consider the source' is always important, and the source in this link is pro-gun, thus biased. Second, how do we know the officer was being 'beaten to death,' or that he was 'screaming for help' as is described in the link? The citizen with a gun killed this man, shot him several times, according to your link. How do we know that was warranted? Why not just call 911 have the police come and take care of it? If this was a funeral procession, there would be a lot of people around, people to break up the fight if possible. The act of the citizen who simply pulled out his gun and shot a half dozen holes into the man seems very extreme, excessive. Does a person actually deserve to die because they are in a fist fight, even if it is a cop they have attacked? I have put forth what I think are some reasonable questions. I would appreciate not being called a lot of names for doing so. Free speech, open dialogue, all that.

Chris Matthews didn't tell me this so it must not be true

Turn off your tv dumbass

 

[OKTexas]

According to some weird study that the gun nutters love to cite, there are thousands of crimes stopped every day by citizens with their guns.

And EVERYONE KNOWS that the media will not report those crimes, because a. no one knows about them and b. it would hurt the gun grabbers if these stopped crimes were reported.

So the conspiracy grows.

Thousands of crimes stopped evrey day........and yet the gun nutter had to go all the way back a few years to find this example. Why?


And of course, did you read the excerpt from the eye witness? He said the shooter never said a word of warning to the guy doing the beat down. Just walked up and shot him in the back of the head. What a puss. Hope he has nightmares for the rest of his life.

The National crime survey conducted by none other than good ol'e uncle Sam says guns are used in self defense 2.5 million times a year. You got a issue with those numbers, take it up with them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Armed Citizen Saves Officer: Concealed Carry Lessons Learned - YouTube

And notice the citizen did notneed a dangerous and unusual weapon, per Heller!

Good job bringing this to our notice, bigrebnc.

 

[OKTexas]

I am female and small, so I wouldn't be able to fight back very well, but, still, I would want people to pull the guy off me, not kill him. I question if the cop was being 'beaten to death' as described in the link. One man against another in a fist fight doesn't mean it is a deadly situation. Was the cop so unfit he couldn't fight back? And if there are people around, and the assailant is unarmed, why kill him, why not just pull him off the cop? Pull him off, restrain him, and wait for police reinforcements. My experience is that, in this kind of situation, the police arrive very quickly, in a few minutes. That's my experience. Certainly, when it is a cop being assaulted, they'd come fast.

No offense, Esmerelda...but coming from someone who's been in a situation where someone was beating my ass (in this case it was four men stomping me on the ground), a few minutes is an incredibly long time. The sad fact is that Police response almost never keeps you from BEING assaulted. They usually just end up helping get you to the hospital.

The Police do come fast when it's one of theirs being assaulted. Don't count on that same response time if it's you that it's happening to because you're probably going to be disappointed.

Okay, but the situation described in the OP was one where there must have been plenty of people around. If the man with the gun told the guy to stop or he'd shoot him, and the guy still didn't stop, why shoot him over and over again, why not once and disable him? Why kill him? This was not a case of 4 men stomping the cop on the ground. This was one man against another man, and I don't see how, for a few minutes, the cop couldn't fight him off or several men/people observing this couldn't make an effort to pull the guy off the cop. I think killing him was over the top. I think if this were reversed and it was a cop shooting someone who was fighting with another person, shooting him several times, you people would be outraged that the cop used excessive force.

Did you bother to watch the video? The assailant had already been shot at least once by the cop, he was shot 4 more times by the citizen and continued the assault, the only shot that disabled the man was the one to the head. Also once the assailant had the upper hand and had the cop laying on a concrete parking lot you don't know which blow to the head will kill or cause permanent brain injury. Like I said earlier, the citizen should have taken the head shot first to immediately cease the attack and that was the point on the assailant that was furthest form the officer.

 

[bucs90]

This was a clear deadly force situation. When a police officer is on the ground, losing the fight, he can resort to deadly force because should he be knocked unconcious, or have his gun taken, his life is in jeapordy. That doesnt mean the cop is just struggling to cuff a guy. I mean losing badly, like being mounted and getting your head beat in.

It would've been justified for the cop to shoot and kill this guy. So it sure as hell was justified for the citizen to do it in defense of the cop. I applaud that citizen, he is a great American who possibly saved the life of a police officer.

 

[RandallFlagg]

First off, I question if this event happened because it has not been on any main stream news sources that I am aware of: perhaps you could cite one, maybe it was on Fox News? Because, whenever presenting facts, 'consider the source' is always important, and the source in this link is pro-gun, thus biased. Second, how do we know the officer was being 'beaten to death,' or that he was 'screaming for help' as is described in the link? The citizen with a gun killed this man, shot him several times, according to your link. How do we know that was warranted? Why not just call 911 have the police come and take care of it? If this was a funeral procession, there would be a lot of people around, people to break up the fight if possible. The act of the citizen who simply pulled out his gun and shot a half dozen holes into the man seems very extreme, excessive. Does a person actually deserve to die because they are in a fist fight, even if it is a cop they have attacked? I have put forth what I think are some reasonable questions. I would appreciate not being called a lot of names for doing so. Free speech, open dialogue, all that.

You're kidding, right?

 

[Antares]

If one has the NEED to point a gun at someone, it is being pointed at them to kill them, shoot to wound is only in the Movies.

I am female and small, so I wouldn't be able to fight back very well, but, still, I would want people to pull the guy off me, not kill him. I question if the cop was being 'beaten to death' as described in the link. One man against another in a fist fight doesn't mean it is a deadly situation. Was the cop so unfit he couldn't fight back? And if there are people around, and the assailant is unarmed, why kill him, why not just pull him off the cop? Pull him off, restrain him, and wait for police reinforcements. My experience is that, in this kind of situation, the police arrive very quickly, in a few minutes. That's my experience. Certainly, when it is a cop being assaulted, they'd come fast.

No offense, Esmerelda...but coming from someone who's been in a situation where someone was beating my ass (in this case it was four men stomping me on the ground), a few minutes is an incredibly long time. The sad fact is that Police response almost never keeps you from BEING assaulted. They usually just end up helping get you to the hospital.

The Police do come fast when it's one of theirs being assaulted. Don't count on that same response time if it's you that it's happening to because you're probably going to be disappointed.

Okay, but the situation described in the OP was one where there must have been plenty of people around. If the man with the gun told the guy to stop or he'd shoot him, and the guy still didn't stop, why shoot him over and over again, why not once and disable him? Why kill him? This was not a case of 4 men stomping the cop on the ground. This was one man against another man, and I don't see how, for a few minutes, the cop couldn't fight him off or several men/people observing this couldn't make an effort to pull the guy off the cop. I think killing him was over the top. I think if this were reversed and it was a cop shooting someone who was fighting with another person, shooting him several times, you people would be outraged that the cop used excessive force.

 

[Oldstyle]

If one has the NEED to point a gun at someone, it is being pointed at them to kill them, shoot to wound is only in the Movies.

No offense, Esmerelda...but coming from someone who's been in a situation where someone was beating my ass (in this case it was four men stomping me on the ground), a few minutes is an incredibly long time. The sad fact is that Police response almost never keeps you from BEING assaulted. They usually just end up helping get you to the hospital.

The Police do come fast when it's one of theirs being assaulted. Don't count on that same response time if it's you that it's happening to because you're probably going to be disappointed.

Okay, but the situation described in the OP was one where there must have been plenty of people around. If the man with the gun told the guy to stop or he'd shoot him, and the guy still didn't stop, why shoot him over and over again, why not once and disable him? Why kill him? This was not a case of 4 men stomping the cop on the ground. This was one man against another man, and I don't see how, for a few minutes, the cop couldn't fight him off or several men/people observing this couldn't make an effort to pull the guy off the cop. I think killing him was over the top. I think if this were reversed and it was a cop shooting someone who was fighting with another person, shooting him several times, you people would be outraged that the cop used excessive force.

Agreed. If you pull it...you'd best be prepared to use it...otherwise it should have stayed in it's holster.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Armed Citizen Saves Officer: Concealed Carry Lessons Learned - YouTube

And notice the citizen did notneed a dangerous and unusual weapon, per Heller!

Good job bringing this to our notice, bigrebnc.

militia weapons are not dangerous weapons you ******* troll they are protected under the second amendment as per Miller.